Trump guilty on all charges

https://x.com/vigilantfox/status/179...LhmySD2aRt-GNg

Trump Hater Crumbles as Piers Morgan Asks One Simple Question

PIERS MORGAN: “Why is Bill Clinton able to have sex with an intern in the Oval Office when he’s President and lie to the American people about it on national television? And why is he able to pay off Paula Jones $850,000, four times as much, five times as much as the Trump payment to Stormy Daniels, to get rid of a sexual harassment claim, again, while he’s President, and he has no criminal court recourse for that? Why is that deemed to be better than what happened with Trump and Stormy?”

FRANCESCA FIORENTINI: “I don’t think anyone is making that case, Piers.”

PIERS MORGAN: “No, I’m asking you, what’s the difference? What’s the difference?”

FRANCESCA FIORENTINI: “The difference is that he didn’t cook the books financially using his own, like using back channels in order to pay.”

PIERS MORGAN: “So paying somebody off who says you sexually harassed her, paying her nearly a million dollars while you’re the President of the United States and then having sex with an intern in the Oval Office and lying about it, that’s fine because he’s a Democrat?”

FRANCESCA FIORENTINI: “Only the leftists in your mind are making that argument.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

No - it is the same topic.

---

Are you saying the various security services around the world are all best buddies with the leaders of every country?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

Are you saying the various security services around the world are all best buddies with the leaders of every country?

---

No - I’m saying it is the same topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

No - I’m saying it is the same topic.

---

If that is true it would be the same in all cases, which it's not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

If that is true it would be the same in all cases, which it's not.

---

What are you wittering on about now?

There was no proven collusion between Trump and Putin to a standard that would allow a criminal conviction. But moving away from the strictly legal definition of collusion there was consistent collaboration, sharing of aims and intelligence and a convergence of ideas and interests. The result was that Russian state actors, and private troll factories directed by Putin allies, aided Trump and attacked Clinton throughout the 2016 election campaign.

That is not ‘another topic’. You claim ‘hoax’ whilst at the same time admitting Russian co-ordinated interventions in the election to aid Putin’s buddy Trump. In non-legal terms there is clearly collusion. But there was not enough evidence to meet the very high and legalistic bar needed for a US federal prosecution.

But what Russia did - what you admit they did (whilst falsely claiming that all governments do it - many don’t have the capacity, and they have to chose a side) - is heart and centre of the story, ‘the topic’.

I have no idea what ‘the same in all cases’ means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

What are you wittering on about now?

There was no proven collusion between Trump and Putin to a standard that would allow a criminal conviction. But moving away from the strictly legal definition of collusion there was consistent collaboration, sharing of aims and intelligence and a convergence of ideas and interests. The result was that Russian state actors, and private troll factories directed by Putin allies, aided Trump and attacked Clinton throughout the 2016 election campaign.

That is not ‘another topic’. You claim ‘hoax’ whilst at the same time admitting Russian co-ordinated interventions in the election to aid Putin’s buddy Trump. In non-legal terms there is clearly collusion. But there was not enough evidence to meet the very high and legalistic bar needed for a US federal prosecution.

But what Russia did - what you admit they did (whilst falsely claiming that all governments do it - many don’t have the capacity, and they have to chose a side) - is heart and centre of the story, ‘the topic’.

I have no idea what ‘the same in all cases’ means.

---

It's 2024, we know exactly what happened, and it's not the Rachel Maddow version of events that you are clinging on to :biggrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PontBlue

They are also conveniently ignoring the Jury selection process. The Judge didn't convict, the DA didn't convict, a jury of his peers did.

---

Which were 90% democrat. Clearly balanced and fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keyser Soze

Which were 90% democrat. Clearly balanced and fair.

---

Surely Trump and his lawyers had the right to challenge the jurors when they were being selected? What an indictment of what America has become that it’s taken for granted that who you vote for will be entirely responsible for the decision you will arrive at as a jury member.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keyser Soze

Which were 90% democrat. Clearly balanced and fair.

---

And none of them were excused by Trumps lawyers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PontBlue

And none of them were excused by Trumps lawyers.

---

I think his lawyers ran out of challenges. But if there wasn't a limit then they'd have just kept on challenging until November so the trial never got started.

Regardless, even if 90% were democrat (and Keyser needs to put his money where is mouth is on that, as he's been a bit shaky on facts in this thread) then one or two were Republican or Independent, and they all unanimously voted guilty on everything. Doesn't reflect well on Trump's innocence, that.

Some people have been a bit shaky on facts in this thread (no names mentioned!). The judge changed the definition of a unanimous verdict during the trial LOL.

Talk about an open goal ... "For a conviction, each juror would have to find that at least one of three things happened, but they don’t have to agree unanimously on which one it was."

50p says the verdict gets overturned on appeal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

Some people have been a bit shaky on facts in this thread (no names mentioned!). The judge changed the definition of a unanimous verdict during the trial LOL.

Talk about an open goal ... "For a conviction, each juror would have to find that at least one of three things happened, but they don’t have to agree unanimously on which one it was."

50p says the verdict gets overturned on appeal.

---

Correct. When I watch the news or read papers I will cross read the angles and try to find as many facts both sides then form the picture.

I get the impression that lardarse and Bob Wilson just read the BBC and Guardian, as opposed to reading the entire spectrum. The fact that two leading Professor Emeritus in Law, known Democrats, from Democrat-leaning Yale and Harvard, are both making the points I echoed above isn’t considered at all. It just isn’t convenient for them to hear it. So it is selectively ignored.

But the most funny and curious thing is that a few here routinely criticise the US, but yet because in their mind they hate Trump, suddenly the court system is clean, true, perfect and unimpeded. That logic is as straight as a bowl of spaghetti, and in a court of law that would be Exhibit A for jumbled up thinking. Yet even most Americans know the legal system there is highly political.

That is the bubble some live in. In one single tunnel, taking Bubblevision narratives that suit their pre-established views, and not giving 1% consideration to any counterfactuals. Politics first. Practical evidence is secondary.

Same pattern, every time. As predictable as a grandfather clock - without the big dong!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keyser Soze

Correct. When I watch the news or read papers I will cross read the angles and try to find as many facts both sides then form the picture.

I get the impression that lardarse and Bob Wilson just read the BBC and Guardian, as opposed to reading the entire spectrum. The fact that two leading Professor Emeritus in Law, known Democrats, from Democrat-leaning Yale and Harvard, are both making the points I echoed above isn’t considered at all. It just isn’t convenient for them to hear it. So it is selectively ignored.

But the most funny and curious thing is that a few here routinely criticise the US, but yet because in their mind they hate Trump, suddenly the court system is clean, true, perfect and unimpeded. That logic is as straight as a bowl of spaghetti, and in a court of law that would be Exhibit A for jumbled up thinking. Yet even most Americans know the legal system there is highly political.

That is the bubble some live in. In one single tunnel, taking Bubblevision narratives that suit their pre-established views, and not giving 1% consideration to any counterfactuals. Politics first. Practical evidence is secondary.

Same pattern, every time. As predictable as a grandfather clock - without the big dong!

---

I don't think the court system is fair at all. Trump was allowed to get away with a lot during the trial.

Out of interest, have you considered that Trump actually did do what he was found guilty of?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keyser Soze

Correct. When I watch the news or read papers I will cross read the angles and try to find as many facts both sides then form the picture.

I get the impression that lardarse and Bob Wilson just read the BBC and Guardian, as opposed to reading the entire spectrum. The fact that two leading Professor Emeritus in Law, known Democrats, from Democrat-leaning Yale and Harvard, are both making the points I echoed above isn’t considered at all. It just isn’t convenient for them to hear it. So it is selectively ignored.

But the most funny and curious thing is that a few here routinely criticise the US, but yet because in their mind they hate Trump, suddenly the court system is clean, true, perfect and unimpeded. That logic is as straight as a bowl of spaghetti, and in a court of law that would be Exhibit A for jumbled up thinking. Yet even most Americans know the legal system there is highly political.

That is the bubble some live in. In one single tunnel, taking Bubblevision narratives that suit their pre-established views, and not giving 1% consideration to any counterfactuals. Politics first. Practical evidence is secondary.

Same pattern, every time. As predictable as a grandfather clock - without the big dong!

---

Not sure what I’ve done in this thread to merit you singlingme out. I’ve made two contributions, in the first I said a, former, President being found guilty of a criminal offence by a jury was an unprecedented situation, so, unlike the likes of you and Andrew Neil, I wouldn’t make out that I knew exactly what would happen next. In the second, I mentioned Trump’s lawyers would have surely challenged the selection of a jury full of Democrats and asked what has a country come to if the thing that determines a person’s guilt or innocence in the minds of a jury is what political party he belongs to - I didn’t need to read the Guardian or BbC website to do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Not sure what I’ve done in this thread to merit you singlingme out. I’ve made two contributions, in the first I said a, former, President being found guilty of a criminal offence by a jury was an unprecedented situation, so, unlike the likes of you and Andrew Neil, I wouldn’t make out that I knew exactly what would happen next. In the second, I mentioned Trump’s lawyers would have surely challenged the selection of a jury full of Democrats and asked what has a country come to if the thing that determines a person’s guilt or innocence in the minds of a jury is what political party he belongs to - I didn’t need to read the Guardian or BbC website to do that.

---

Bobsy, I did say “I get the impression”. Hence why not very definitive, but a little more so on the lardman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

I think his lawyers ran out of challenges. But if there wasn't a limit then they'd have just kept on challenging until November so the trial never got started.

Regardless, even if 90% were democrat (and Keyser needs to put his money where is mouth is on that, as he's been a bit shaky on facts in this thread) then one or two were Republican or Independent, and they all unanimously voted guilty on everything. Doesn't reflect well on Trump's innocence, that.

---

I can't find a stat for the district of manhattan but the new york city metro area is 56% democrat, 26% republican and 18% no lean according to Pew Research